ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL

BOARD

February 21, 1980

ALGONQUIN

AREA

PUBLIC

LIBRARY

DISTRICT,

)

)

Petitioner,

)

v.

)

PCB 79—159

)

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

AGENCY,

Respondent.

OPINION

AND

ORDER

OF

THE

BOARD

(by

Mr.

Goodman):

This

is a petition for variance from Rules 102 and 202

of the Board’s noise regulations as they apply to Petitioner’s

(flgonquin) air conditioning facility located behind its library

building on 115 Eastgate, Algonquin.

Petition was made as. a

result of a complaint to the Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency (Agency) in 1977 by Lori and Joseph Jasinski, whose home

is situated approximately 50 feet behind Algonquin’s library.

Algonquin’s engineers studied the problem and made recommenda-

tions;

Algonquin

followed

certain

of

these

before

seeking

a

5—dB

variance

for

between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.

if

and

when

conditions

require

operation

at

maximum

load

•

The

technical

reason

given

to

support

grant

of

variance

is

that

further

noise

reduction

can

be

achieved

only

by

restricting

air

movement

around

the

fans

and

coils.

The

hardship

alleged

is

the

already-spent

$10,000,

a present expenditure of uncertain

size, and the ‘only trivial’ further reductions possible by its

efforts.

The

Agency’s Recommendation was filed on October 30, 1979.

It recommended denial for the reasons that

(1) further noise

reduction may not be trivial depending on the efforts expended

by Petitioner;

(2) Petitioner has not

yet

established a detailed

noise abatement program; and (3)

Petitioner

to

date

has

not

followed all the recommendations of its consultant.

The Board

further notes that the variance petition did not specify the

period

for

which

the variance was sought and did not set forth

a

detailed

compliance

program.

Attempts

at

correcting

these

were

made

at

hearing

(R.75—79).

Algonquin first contacted its consultant—witness Yerges,

a man of 41 years’ experience in sound control, on

May

31,

1978

(R.10—11).

The problem

was

described as emanating from the

air—cooled condensers during operation at maximum load, and in

37—401

---

particular from the vertical

discharge

of air over the

fans

located on the top of the unit (R,12)~ Yerges~recommendations

one month later were to remove the tubular silencers on

the

top

of the unit,

replacing them with a lined,

acoustic plenum and

low pressure drop duct mufflers, and to screen the intakes to

the unit

(R,15)~

Yerges further recommended constructing an

8—foot barrier between the unit and the residential property,

installing three-foot-long mufflers on the top of the unit

(R,15-16),

installing further screening,

and adding absorptive

material to the library wall behind the unit (R,29)~

The system designer, Migdal, testified that the air

con-

ditioner could not be relocated much further away without

sacrificing loss of refrigeration capacity (R~62—63);that two

of

the

six

fans

could

not

be

shut

off

without

harming

the

system,

especially for two hours during the estimated 30 days of peak

demand annually (R~64—65),although this was possible after

7:00

pam.

(R~73—74); that

the

system,

installed

at

the

end

of

1975 and having

a 12—year life

(R.74), was not designed with

consideration of the noise levels

in Rule 204

(R,66—67);

and

that the manufacturer,

Trane Co., advised him that extending

the present 8—foot barrier by six feet or canting it would cause

shortcycling when wind velocity was “low”

(R.69—70).

The library building architect, Pigozzi, testified that

to move the 4,000-pound air conditioner would require roof

modifications at a cost of $10,000 plus labor (R.88—90).

The

Librarian,

Stahl,

testified

that

the

library

never

opens

before

10:00 a.m.

and is closed on Sundays

(R.92)

(Neighbor Jasinski

testified

that the noise is heard on

Sundays,

R,110); that

users

have

complained

“vehemently”

in

the

summer

that

the

library

is too

warm

(R.96);

and that there has been an

increased number of maintenance problems since the installa-

tion of screening over

a, year ago (R,94).

The

neighbor,

Ms.

Jaskinski,

testified

that

the

noise

interferes

with

her

family~s

and

friends~

being

outside

in

the yard

(R,105,

109),

with

both

of

her

children~s

falling

asleep

at

night

(R.106—107),

and

with

dinnertime

conversations

(R.105).

It

sounds to her, especially in the evening hours,

like a continual noise; when the system stops the quiet is

noticeable

(R,107—108),

She did not complain directly to

Algonquin because her builder informed her that the Agency was

handling the problem

(R,105—106),

The Agency testified that it observed that Petitioner

had

taken the noise abatement steps of adding an exhaust

plenum

with silencers and constructing

a barrier, but that the barrier

was insufficient because it was too low (R,124—126),

The Agency

testified that even after the control methods were put into

practice the noise

level was too loud and interfered with

living

(R.147).

The 60~dBsound

level in the Jasinskis~back

yard indicates that people must not stand more than 8-10 feet

37—402

---

from each other in order to converse normally (Recommendation,

Ex~5).

The Agency could not pursuant to Rule 405(a)(4) state

what costs

of compliance would he because Algonquin had not

established a compliance plan (Recommendation, p~2),

Exhibit

5 of the Recommendation,

an interoffice Agency

memorandum,

indicates that removing or relocating the unit will

substantially reduce noise levels,

as could barrier expansions

The current problem is the exhaust at the top of the silencers;

the Agency found this to be

a major factor in the barrier~s

ineffectiveness

(Recommendation, Ex~5)~However,

the barrier

was one of the first steps which Yerges had advised Algonquin

to take;

if compliance wasn~tthereafter achievable Yerges

advised various modifications to the barrier be made (Recom~

rnendation, App~IV)~ The Agency found that these second step

recommendations are what Algonquin must take, as

a minimum,

to

reach compliance

(Recommendation, Ex~5)~.

Yerges and Migdal both testified that within five years,

the period

for which Algonquin seeks a variance possible improve~-

ments

or modifications can cause compliance

—

but neither says

much more except that compliance will be due to new methods of

improvement (R~58)or to unspecified modifications (R~65~66).

Algonquin~sattorney admits that the state of the art has since

changed and offer~to modify or replace the unit accordingly,

meanwhile running it on four of the six fans after 7:00 p~m.to

ensure no operation at maximum load (R~77~78),

Although no evidence was introduced regarding how the state

of the art has changed,

let alone the extent of costs involved,

the Board will grant a limited variance for the purpose of allowing

Algonquin to further investigate methods of complying with the

Board~sRules~

The Board will grant Algonquin variance

from Rules

102 and 202 until

March

1,

1981 under certain conditions~

These

conditions will

be those generally suggested by Algonquin at the

hearing and to which the Agency refers

in their closing arguments

Although the Agency refers to a document dated December 27,

1979

supposedly submitted by Algonquin entitled uStatement of Interim

Remedial Measures During Variance~,the Board can find neither

the document nor any record of its having been filed before the

Board

This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclu~~

sions of law of the Board

in this matters

ORDER

It

is the Order of the Board that variance from Rules 102

and 202 of the Board’s Noise Regulations be granted to Algonquin

37-403

---

—4—

Area Public Library District until March

1, 1981 under certain

conditions:

1.

Algonquin Area Public Library District shall

investigate and evaluate available methods

which will allow its air conditioning equipment

to meet limits imposed by the Board~sRules,

including but not limited to extension of the

noise barrier, modification of the exhaust and

intake mufflers and/or compressor exhaust fans

and the use of auxiliary air conditioners in

remote locations.

2.

During the period of this variance Algonquin

Area Public Library District shall modify its

equipment operation in the following manner:

(A)

Algonguin shall maintain the temperature

in the Library at the Federall~mandated

level of 78°Fduring the cooling system.

(B)

Algonquin shall schedule the air conditioning

equipment

so that no more than two compressors

and no more than four condenser fans are in

operation after 7:00 p.m. Monday through

Saturday and all day on Sunday.

(3)

Within 45 days of the adoption of this Order,

the

Algonquin Area Public Library District shall

execute and forward to the Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency,

2200 Churchill Road, Springfield,

Illinois 62706 a Certification of Acceptance and

Agreement to be hound to all terms ~nd conditions

of this Order,

The 45 day period shall be held in

abeyance during any period this matter is being

appealed,

The form of said certification shall be

as follows:

CERTIFICATION

I

(We),

having read and

fully understanding the Order of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board in PCB 79~159,hereby accept said Order and agree to be

bound

by

all of the terms and conditions thereof.

S IGNED______

TITLE_______

DATE

______

37—404

---

I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control Board,

hereby certify the a~vçOpinion and Order

were adopted on the

A1~’

day

of ~

1980

by

a vote of

4~

.

C)

Christan L.

Mof

,

Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

37—405